FreedomWorks - Jessica Bennetthttp://www.freedomworks.org/fieldtags/jessica-bennett
enThe Romance is Gone http://www.freedomworks.org/content/romance-gone
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><img src="http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Courtesy_of_Newsweek.png" alt="Newsweek Article" title="Newsweek Article" width="260" class="imagecache imagecache-preview">Who knew the best form of birth control would be the President himself?</p><p>Shortly after the historic election of Barack Obama in 2008, Newsweek magazine ran an article basking in the afterglow of victory, opining about the possibility of American citizens themselves ... um, basking in the afterglow.</p><p>In an article which showed the depths of worship in which the media had descended to support their chosen candidate, Jessica Bennett&nbsp;projected her own excitement upon readers, discussing the possibility of a baby boom sparked by "exhilarated" and "euphoric" Obama fans being "in the mood for love."</p><p>The title of the piece, <em>Change You Can Conceive In</em>, tells you all you need to know. In mind-numbing, stomach-turning, reach for the bleach to cleanse the eyes, scenario after scenario, liberal couples share about their need to celebrate Obama's 'seismic' election.</p><p>I could cite many examples, but I'll spare you and leave you with the mildest of them all; a husband who downed a bottle-and-a-half of wine and started muttering to his wife about "making an Obama election baby."</p><p>Crikey.</p><p>Why am I torturing readers with this, you ask? &nbsp;</p><p>Despite the ridiculous examples cited, Bennett was right. &nbsp;According to reports from the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_25.pdf">Center for Disease Control</a> (CDC), the number of live births rose from 325,000 in November of 2008, to 360,000 in August of 2009. &nbsp;That represented a 0.8% increase in live births per 1,000 population during that time, and a seasonally adjusted increase of 1.1%.</p><p>Hope and change, or hope and euphoria as Bennett reported, had resulted in a little more lovin' amongst our fellow Americans.</p><p>So if we're willing to concede that point, then the liberal media must surely concede an updated point about birth rates: Once their rockstar&nbsp;<em>candidate&nbsp;</em>Obama turned into our bumbling <em>President </em>Obama, birth rates went relatively limp.</p><p>Recent analysis by the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358813/Baby-bust-National-birthrate-hit-time-low-weak-economic-recovery.html">Pew Institute</a> shows that the actual number of national births in 2012 hit the lowest point in nearly 15 years, and the rate itself is at an all-time low.</p><p>A Daily Mail report tried to find reason for the decline, eventually settling on financial uncertainty. &nbsp;</p><p>But how could this be, with the recession having ended over four years ago? We have seen a "<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/17/a-summer-recovery">summer of recovery</a>", we have seen jobs created, jobs saved, and "<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/19/obamanomics-touching-lives-195000-at-a-time/">lives touched</a>", and we have seen "<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/04/obama-s-economic-triumph.html">economic triumph</a>." &nbsp;</p><p>We have seen Obamanomics. And that's just it. &nbsp;The President's economic plan, firmly implanted for four years now, has effectively sterilized the nation.</p><p>D’Vora Cohn, a senior writer at the Pew Research Center explained: &nbsp;"When times are up, births go up. &nbsp;When times are bad, births go down."</p><p>Times are bad. &nbsp;</p><p>The Daily Mail report adds:</p><blockquote><p>Despite the recession being officially over for four years, the weak recovery and economic uncertainty has resulted in the national birthrate hitting an all-time low in 2011, and staying there in 2012.</p><p>...&nbsp;Some couples are missing their window of opportunity to have a baby because they never feel financially secure enough to commit to having a child.<br></p><p>...&nbsp;For many middle-class people, parenting in the way they want ... is a costly and sometimes unaffordable task.</p><p>For lower income people, the expense of a baby could push families below the poverty line.</p></blockquote><p>CNBC reporter, Allison Linn, examines the current trend of <a href="http://www.today.com/money/dreams-delayed-or-denied-young-adults-put-parenthood-6C10528964">delaying parenthood</a>, or perhaps even being denied an American dream that includes children. &nbsp;Her report arrives at similar economic results - Student loan debt, lack of career mobility in a weak job market, and watching their own parents suffer economically, were all cited as current reasons for lower birth rates.</p><p>These economic negatives have flourished under the President's term, and their is very little sign of improvement on the horizon.</p><p>For all of the whining that legal scholar, Sandra Fluke, staged in front of House Democrats in 2012, regarding how birth control, easily attainable for most at the local retail store for <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law">$9/month</a>, had simply become unaffordable for a 30-year-old law student, the answer was right there all along. &nbsp;</p><p>Who knew that we already had the strongest form of contraception in place already?</p><p>An economy running off the fumes of failed platitudes. &nbsp;An economy running off of hope and change. &nbsp;An economy fueled by euphoria, but stalled by reality.</p><p>An economy run by President Obama.</p><p><em><a href="https://twitter.com/rustyweiss74">Follow Rusty on twitter @rustyweiss74</a></em></p></div></div></div>Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:17:14 +0000grusbf557602 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/romance-gone#comments